1. Would you feel OK about your son (real or theoretical) playing football? To what degree?

2. To what extent do you believe football can survive, as is?

3. What would you do to try to save the sport?

My responses:

1. I would discourage my theoretical son from playing football. While at the end of the day, it would be his choice, I'd encourage soccer or fall-ball baseball for an autumn sport. If he chose to play football, I would be a pretty worried person everyday.

2. Every year something changes and I don't think that will stop any time soon. So, no I think 10-15 years from now the game will be different.

3. I'd make hitting illegal. If you do not attempt to wrap up with your arms and instead launch your body (whether you make contact with your shoulder or helmet), it would be a personal foul. 2 of them and you're ejected.

Yeah, big hits are exciting. But how often do we lament the player going for the big hit and failing to bring down the ball carrier? I think we can eliminate hitting without taking too much away from the game.

Comment viewing options

These type of topic always make me feel a bit silly because I think everyone posting is much more concerned with letting others know their opinions rather than listening to others. But hey, I'm a cynical ass hole. Anyway...

1) as a kicker. My wife and I are each below 5'5" so my answer here is moot.
2) as long as there's money there it will be successful as is. The players will continue to play because athletes have an invincibility complex when they are young and healthy.
3) I can't honestly think of anything that would make the game "safe" and keep me as interested in it as I am now.

Just re-read and realized my answer to #2 is pretty dumb. What I meant is: I don't think it will change much because the owners and the league will not want to change something that is making them lots of money.

I don't know what you apologized for; you're right. Football is a gladiator sport. There will always be money in that, and the top football players will continue to see themselves as the best or potential best because that is what it takes to succeed.

If you don't think you can wreck your opponent, you will lose. That is how football works. Sure rules change, but the key to football will always be destroying the guy across from you. If that changes, then we may as well call it synchronized dancing... or professional shlong stroking.

I'm not a soccer fan, but it won't be popular in the US until the MLS becomes a premier league. Of the people I know who love soccer, they all follow European teams which means they can't go to games. Soccer won't become popular by people following European teams.

Actually, the some of the latest studies of long term head trams stem from soccer. ALS amung soccer pros later in life is comparable to football. Heading crosses is as bad repeatedly as hits. Google it, there are like five guys from one Italian team who all have Lou Gehrigs Disease.

We are hearing about a lot of alarming stories coming out of the NFL. Almost invariably, players with many years' experience in the NFL. To be sure, these are anecdotal bits of evidence. There needs to be much more study, to address any real epidemiological questions. And as always, not matter what an autopsy might have found in a gross and microscopic examination of Junior Seau's brain, it is not terribly close to being a proximate cause of death -- the guy tried to commit suicide previously (although denied at the time), and should have been under care thereafter. Not sure if he was or wasn't or why not.

But in any event, I am not hearing those stories in the collegiate ranks. There may in fact be some instances (again, anecdotal) in collegiate football. But, uh, I don't quite know how to suggest this but... I haven't heard of any rash of "stories" about college football players being left forlorn "with nothing to fall back on" as a result of repetitive concussive syndromes.

I never said this study means parents should keep their kids out of football. I simply provided a piece of actual evidence linking football and CTE. I don't give a shit what you do with your kids and neither do the doctors who conducted this study. The difference between lay people and scientists is that scientists know about the dangers of overextending the conclusions they make, and, thus, don't make blanket statements as the conclusions of their hard work.

why do you come here? I mean do you get any enjoyment at all about argueing with different posters all the time? Or are you such a miserable cunt that this is just your thing and you actually enjoy arguing with people all day?

While Jahvid Best's concussions in college didn't end his career at Cal, they were enough to cut short his junior year and raise a bunch of red flags about how long he'd last in the NFL with those issues. The people questioning it, wound up being right. Dude made it one season in the NFL and is now done at the age of 23 because of serious head problems that started in college. God knows what kind of shitty life he'll have as a result.

You know what? You're right AND you make excellent points. Have a cookie and feel special, because you've earned it, buddy!

There are likely tons of examples, but the quickest one I can think of in ones reported up here in the Twin Cities. Jimmy Gjere, a ESPN 150 commit to MN in 2010, retired from football last fall because of repeated concussions. He was 6'8", 325 pounds, and a redshirt freshman.

You might also remember one Mike Williams from Michigan. MGoBlog is a big fan of the guy. His career ended because of the ole concussion issue.

football, along with hockey, rugby, and soccer are all sports that involve the inherent risk of repeted head contact. I understand the argument made against them, but these people choose to play the game, they are not being forced are gun point (at least not in this country)

1. Would you feel OK about your son (real or theoretical) playing football? To what degree?

I would encourage my son to play football all through high school. Having played through high school I know the invaluable lessons in teamwork, respect for the rules and of the community that supports you, and the comrodery I still share to this day with my high school teammates. There were much more life lessons beyond the glory on the field. I would very much encourage my son to partake in that.

2. To what extent do you believe football can survive, as is?

I'm not sure, I dont know enough about the lawsuits of the former players enough to pass judegment, but I think that if the league can institute a waiver that exempts them from responsibiltiy of injuries, the future of the league can go on. As of now, I dont think the public has much sympathy for guys that made tens of millions of dollars then end up having some head trauma and a life of pain because of the way they chose to make the fortuens they did. Will that discourage fans as much as the INSANE ticket prices? We shall see.

3. What would you do to try to save the sport?

I think the sport itself doesnt need "saving" per se. Football just needs a little better PR. All you hear about football is the off field issues and the trouble guys get into, you never hear about the Zoltan Mesko and the Victor Cruz, or even the Suh community outreach stories in the national news. That stuff doesnt sell papers, which is quite unfortunate. Other than that, I think the league is doing what it can.

If your head injuries are bad enough that you have to quit football, you can be fairly sure that your normal day-to-day activities are also going to be impacted. If you didn't see it, check out what head injuries have done to Leroy Hoard:

Wait is that for me? On my iPhone can't tell.. Dude, I tried being civil with you but you constantly resort to childish responses to my posts. You're getting worked up over nothing. You've had about 30 posts today and i still don't understand what your concern/beef/issue is. Clearly state your point, read people's counterpoints, respect others opinions, defend your argument etc., but no need to be immature.

And I am no more willing to predict that it will happen in any particular cohort of patients than I would be willing to deny that it will happen in any particular cohort.

Some of you guys think that I am arguing over the basic medicine behind CTE. I'm not. I am just saying that the news media's freakout over the anecdotal high-publicity cases involving NFL stars don't inform us in any way of any serious epidemiology regarding collegiate players who never played in the NFL.

This is a good point, actually, but you seem to be arguing it for the sake of stroking your ego. High profile events are often the only way to get people thinking about systemic problems. Yes, this sucks; I will lament this phenomenon with you. Meanwhile, I support dealing with this problem, regardless of how attention was brought to it.

I think you misunderstand my point, and why I am trying to make it here.

I started another thread, a perfectly good one I thought, challenging a statement made by President Obama on the subject of CTE and college football. It wasn't a political argument as I posed it. It was a factual one; whether there had been many stories about collegiate players with CTE who were somehow left disabled and "with nothing to fall back on," to quote the President exactly. And all I did was to ask if anybody thought that such stories were numerous enough to be alarming.

But because it was I who posed the question, and because "Obama" was one word in the question, it got shut down, with a bunch of MGoBoard members behaving badly. (The new rule must be something more than just "no politics." It must be no mention of anything political whatsoever no matter what. Assuredly, it will be a flexible rule that will be observed in the breach when the topic is rah-rah Michigan and all that good stuff and when I am not the OP. i.e., Obama shouts out to Denard; OKAY. Obama challenged factually on assertion of CTE in college football; NOT OKAY. The link to Obama/Denard on this Board is particularly funny because it was almost exactly one year prior to my thread being removed. What a difference a year makes.)

I am not worried about mobilizing public support for CTE research. People can do that if they want. Nor am I denying CTE is a problem. I never suggested such a thing.

All that I was trying to do was to use the statement by the President to highlight what I see as a big difference between the NFL and collegiate football. I love college football, and I pretty much hate the NFL; so that much is personal to me. Otherwise, I expressed no angle in the debate.

After defending you throughout the past regime, I can very confidently tell you to go screw yourself.

The folks on this board (well, most) have exactly one thing in common: enjoyment of Michigan sports. Other than that, a great deal of us probably hate each other. Being a member of a Michigan sports blog doesn't say anything about anyone as a person.

So no, you don't get to whine about prodding the sleeping dragon...and then doing it over and over again. The mods exhibit quality control over specific topics FOR A GODDAMN REASON, and all you did tonight was bitch and moan like a five-year-old about those restricted topics.

He really didn't look too hard. In October 2010, 17-year-old Nathan Stiles died hours after his high school homecoming football game, where he took a hit that would be the final straw in a series of subconcussive and concussive blows to the head for the high schooler. The CSTE diagnosed him with CTE, making him the youngest reported CTE case to date

In any event, I am and have been aware of that case. Nathan Stiles sadly became a kind of a poster child for a team's medical staff following proper concussion protocols. Terribly sad for all concerned. We must not let that happen at any level. But Nathan was an acute, sudden death case. While "CTE" might have been the correct diagnosis, we don't know what the future would have held for Nathan had he been given the proper treatment/precautions at the time. In other words, Nathan's long-term outcome could never be determined within the class of long-term disability secondary to CTE.

Hearing about Hoard's heart-wrenching story makes me wish that he never spent those 10 years in the NFL. I sort of wish that he got a degree from Michigan and went into a stock brokerage, or pharmaceutical sales, or postgraduate physcial education, teaching, etc.

It's tougher to dig up since college football isn't centralized like the NFL is and there is such a vast number of players compared to the NFL, but a few Google searches will turn up stories about college football players leaving the game due to concussions. My own half-assed search turned up cases in the last 6 or 7 years at Nebraska, Syracuse, two at Colorado, and one in high school.

Let's also not forget what happened with Sam McGuffie under our program's watch. He had, what, three concussions his freshman year, then all of the sudden started having problems with depression. One can only hope that kid isn't on a segment of Outside the Lines in a decade or two facing the same issues Leroy Hoard is facing.

I'll also add Ron Johnson to the mix. Probably top-5 all-time Michigan RB, graduated after the '68 season, and now lives in a home for people facing early-onset dementia. He literally cannot remember his playing days.

Ron Johnson had 10 or 12 brain-bruising years in the NFL. Ron's brother Alex, the great star for Cincinnati Reds and about eight other MLB teams, played a bunch of brain-rattling youth football too, if I am not mistaken. I think Alex is okay. Big difference between Alex and Ron is a career in MLB versus a career in the NFL.

And I'd be the first to agree that that was the right decision for Williams, if U-M medical staff thought so. But Mike Williams needn't have lost his scholarship. And we clearly don't know if he has, or will have, CTE. He obviously should not attempt to go into the NFL. I don't think the Mike Williams case solves any of the propositions I was advancing.

Besides, the effects of brain injury may not be seen until years later. It's not just NFL guys like Leroy Hoard who suffer later in life. For guys who never go pro, there is indeed "nothing to fall back on." The NCAA doesn't provide health benefits for former players who suffer from the after-effects of football, like getting dementia in their 50s.

"While we will never know the cause of Owen Thomas's depression and subsequent suicide, we are aware of and deeply concerned about the medical issues now being raised about football head injuries and will continue to work with the Ivy League and the medical community in addressing these issues," the University of Pennsylvania said in a statement.

Nobody knows, and the CTE they found was "mild." Sadly, depression and suicide afflicts without regard to age, gender, class... or even Ivy League football status.

Realize, as I have: jumping to conclusions about "CTE" will become standard operating procedure in these cases, at any level.

when he talks about someone is going to die on the football field because the rules about targeting and such are becoming stricter. He sounds way too bitter about having to give up his illegally hard hitting ways

I liked Mark Elzinga; and if I'm not mistaken he had an honorable career in the Secret Service, right? I was shocked when Leach started as a freshman. Elzinga may have been the best backup in the Conference.

Too much bullying in football, all of the hitting and touching each other. The game also ends with a loser which makes half the kids feel bad. They all deserve cake, ice cream, and a trophy. Let me know if I layed the sarcasm on thick enough

Rather than just giving a 15-yd penalty for an illegal head-to-head hit or hitting a defenseless receiver, I’d make it an automatic ejection. The equivalent of a red card in soccer. 15-yards isn’t enough of a deterrent for something that can seriously injure someone. And to determine whether or not the helmet-to-helmet was unavoidable, have the refs review the play.

Easy, easy rule to put in. For the players that don't like it? Quit hitting people with your head dipshit.

You know what? You're right AND you make excellent points. Have a cookie and feel special, because you've earned it, buddy!

Yeah, that's why I think reviewing all flagged illegal hit plays would be key. Kinda like the 5-yd facemask penalty and the 15-yd version. Sometimes the players are just moving too fast, or the offensive guy ducks his head into your way, and you just can't help it. Make those a normal 15-yarder. Or hell, take the soccer system a step further and make those the equivalent of a yellow card. Get two in a game and you're ejected.

You know what? You're right AND you make excellent points. Have a cookie and feel special, because you've earned it, buddy!

It is. But this rule then puts the responsibility of avoiding such a hit on the hitter--you blow it, you're out. That means people will develope methods of hitting that won't result in such hits. The game will be cleaner. Both the hitter and the ballcarrier will be safer.

but the Trouba hit on Seckel earlier in the year is a perfect example of the NCAA applying that standard.

Also, I completely agree that penalties in football need a major overhaul. You're much more likely to win the game by taking cheap shots if you have no issue with injuring an opponent; fifteen yards for a deliberate attempt to injure is a ridiculous tradeoff.

We bring you to Michigan to take care of Michigan. Your job is to protect that block M.
-Carol Hutchins

Football is never going to fix itself. Generations of players have been coached and taught to tackle poorly, which is why we're having all of these issues now. The whole use your head to dislodge the ball concept is a perfect example. That's just stupid, and its only accepted because that's the way its always been. So yes, in order to save football from itself, some rule suggestions need to come from the outside to change the inbred way of thinking that currently resides in football.

You know what? You're right AND you make excellent points. Have a cookie and feel special, because you've earned it, buddy!

what can you do as a DB when you try to dislodge the ball away from reciever? Just stand and wait til they land on the ground then tackle them? No, you hit them just as they catch the ball to dislodge it. That's exactly what I've been taught to do as a S.

Obviously, if there's obvious intent to hit defenseless reciever when the ball is nowhere near it, then yes it's an automatic 15 yarder.

My only beef with the penalties and fines for head to head hits is that they are only called on the defensive players. A ball carrier leading with his head into contact should be penalized as well. If you dont, it simply encourages the ball carrier to spear everyone they come in contact with...might get an extra 15 if you can hit the tacklers head.

Reality is an illusion created by an unsafe drop in blood alcohol levels that exposes one to the idiocy of others.

1 - My son won't play football outside of being a kicker / punter. I'll sit him down and tell him what happens when you get hit thousands of times in low-grade collisions and explain I don't want him to risk permanent brain injury.

2 - Football can survive with a few reasonable changes. First, there is no need for tackle football before age 14. Second, college players should weigh no more than 285 pounds, and pro players need not weigh more than 300 pounds (remember when William Perry was an anomaly? I think Michigan has 2-3 linemen who weigh more than him, let alone NFL teams or Wisconsin's entire offensive line). Third, tackling with your head should be outlawed (the SEC would need 5 years to adjust). Fourth, expand NFL rosters so players with concussions don't feel pressure to return. Give teams 70 roster spots. Fifth, independent medical professionals on the sidelines of college and pro games, at a neutral location on the sidelines where coaches are not permitted to enter or congregate.

3 - I'd do about as much to save football as I'd do to save boxing or the UFC. The sport maims many of its participants. I don't care much if it goes away - I'll watch soccer and baseball instead.

I'm not a father, but if I ever have a son who enjoys playing and watching the game as much as I do, I would never ban him from playing if it brings hom that much joy.
I think the right steps will be taken to gradually make the game safer. If it degenerates into sissy flag football, so be it. I love the basic objectives and elements of the game so much that I would probably be just as interested a pro-flag league if it was the only option...just my two cents.

I think it's more likely that we will all (ALL) be morbidly obese, confined to hovering chairs, plugged into permanent life support systems. Sports like football will be played by bionic cyborgs, and the hitting will be epic.

Implement the rules of the Pro Bowl for the regular season in terms of what the defense is allowed to do. It results in a high scoring game with basketball scores but it would be a lot more entertaining than a defense battle.

I'm so mad that i missed that other thread you're talking about. Sounds like so much fun. I just once want someone to post something blatantly political and for the mods to let it reach its epic conclusion organically. It'd be like The Hunger Games of the blogosphere.

I think you'd be disappointed. I quoted Obama, on the subject of college football and concussions. It's been a pretty controversial (non-politically) throughout the day. The NCAA addressed the subject without referencing the President's statement, which is a kind of passive-aggressive way of dealing with it.

Anyway, the original story was an Obama story just because it was an Obama quote. I wrote that I was not aware (as Obama alleged) that there were "stories" of college football players with histories of concussions "had nothing to fall back on." That's what Obama said, and I asked if anyone knew of such "stories." That's it. I tried really hard to herd the cats and keep it on topic and I was getting somewhere with some exceptions, but a mod shut it down. The Board's sensibilities are just a bit too fragile to handle something like that.

This is a really interesting topic, one that I think will become more pressing. The issues with head injuries are escalating toward a level that will be unsusainable. Something will have to change.

My answers to the questions:

1. I don't know. I have daughters, and coordination doesn't run in my family; I do kind of wish I had played football now and don't believe a few years of high school ball would've hurt me.

2. Football can survive. What will need to change may change the appearance and style of the game a bit, but it will be able to continue.

3. Regarding those changes:

As has been mentioned, changing the way people tackle. Good, proper, repeatable tackles can be made without destroying someone. Other types of contact may need to be modified, too--the impact of the offensive and defensive lines may need to be tweaked.

There may be an as-yet-undeveloped advancement in technology that will allow helmets to offer full protection while still reducing G-force impacts.

Here's the thing that nobody seems to talk about, but it's beginning to drive me nuts: Football needs to address its PED issue. It is obvious to everyone involved that football has become faster and bigger in the last 30 years. It's not like guys weren't using advanced workouts and nutrition supplements in the 80s; nobody worked harder than Jerry Rice, for example. Why have things changed so much? Drugs are the obvious, inevitable answer.

There may be a few who read that and scoff, thinking that it isn't a big issue. Really? Steroids and other drugs increase speed and strength, which are both essential characteristics for football players. You will be more effective and will make more money. And while the NFL has had testing for decades, the last decade has shown us that testing doesn't really get the job done. Lance Armstrong "never failed a test" and yet has now admitted that he was juiced to the gills; Marion Jones the same. These are people that faced testing far more stringent than the NFL provides, and were not caught.

Anyone with the resources can beat the system. It is plainly clear to me that much, probably most, of the NFL does.

And until they address the issue honestly, they will not fix the problem of bigger and stronger men hitting each other at high velocities.

I played tackle football in 7th and 8th grade, 30 years ago. Back then, hitting with your helmet was called "spearing" and resulted in a 15 yard penalty. I'm amazed that people complain about penalties being called for "helmet-to-helmet" hits, because when I played, that was a penalty, regardless if the player was defenseless or not. When I played, we had knee pads, thigh pads, hip pads, and tailbone pads. Players today, particularly in the NFL, don't wear any pads below the waist, so naturally, they are much faster and their hits are that much harder. So two changes I would make would actually be to make the game more like it was - vigorously enforce the no spearing rule, and make players wear pads.

I got hit once in practice by our middle linebacker, he was a grade above me, and about 30-40 pounds heavier. My whole left arm went numb, I fumbled the ball because I had no feeling in my arm, and I got cussed out by a coach for fumbling. I realized then that football was a tough game. I kept playing because I enjoyed the game, but that was an eye-opener.

I have an 8 year old son. So far, he hasn't shown an interest in playing football. I would have to think long and hard about letting him play. Does that make me a hypocrite? Maybe, but my son and his health comes first. If someone else's kid wants to risk their health, that is their business, as long as the information is out there.

Somebody mentioned soccer. The youth leagues around here don't let players use their heads for fear of concussions or head trauma. I wonder about the adult soccer players who take kicks from goalies 2/3 of the way down the field off their heads. I can't imagine that's much different than boxers getting hit in the head repeatedly, leading to the punch-drunk phenomenon. Every sport has risks involved - my wife tore her calf muscle playing badminton, and I lost two teeth playing that game. You've got to live your life though.

Sing to the colors that float in the light; Hurrah for the PMS7406 and Blue!

For those with serious problems, there are 10 that are fine and 4 with mild issues. Football is around a 150 years old; it's not as if it's some new sport. Physically violent sports have always been part of human culture, if it's not football it'll be something else. That doesn't make the tragic cases ok, but it also isn't as much of a pandemic as its being made out to be.

1. I'd let my kid play football in high school and explain to him the ramifications and possibility of injuries and explain that despite the fact that I love football, I chose to play a different sport in part because I didn't like the idea of being battered. Football is like smoking, you know the risks, but I'm not going to tell my kids, once they're old enough to understand, how to live their lives.

2. Football will survive as it has for over a century. The president threatened to ban it in the early 1900s and changes were made. Changes will continue to be made to helmets, rules, etc, but it'll still be a brutal sport where guys get hurt. My guess is that eventually they'll test players for CTE and they'll be forced into retirement to cover the NFL's liabilities.

3. I'd go back to leather helments, which would offer protection but probably end killshots. If not that, then force every NFL player to have brain scans for damage.

1. I wouldn't even worry about it unless he was good enough to play college. And at that point he's gone so far and has a full ride, that there's a slim chance he wouldn't want to play anymore.

2. I believe they can keep it safe and not change the game too much.

3. Make the "strike zone" part of the rules. Strike zone being above the knees, below the shoulders. And obviously you can't lead with your helmet. Pretty much that's making "fundamental tackling" the rule. You can't leave your feet to tackle, unless diving to make a shoe string tackle. That takes glamour out of defense that everyone has loved and endorsed for so long. But I believe that would solve most problems just with that little bit.

Mentioning Barack Obama is not political in this thread. The other thread looked like a debate about football safety. There is no reason that political opinions cannot be referenced about a non political debate. Let's get our moderation standards straight.

I have a son. He is nearing 10 months old. His right kidney is a pelvic kidney and it is a Multi-Cystic Dysplastic kidney (basically his right kidney is in his pelvis instead of up higher in the back, and it doesn't work because it just has cysts filled with fluid in it instead of working kidney tissue). You only need 1 kidney to live, and his left kidney is fully functional. Since his left kidney does all the work it is enlarged, and therefore, more sucseptible to injury.

Roughly 10 seconds after the diagnosis the first question i ask, naturally, "What does this mean for his sports career?", trying to make it like I was being a little funny but my wife and the doc both knew it was a serious inquiry.

The doc basically said he should be able to live a normal life but should probably not ride motorcycles or do jousting or anything with a high probability of blunt forced trauma. All sports should be fine, and we'll continue to monitor everything as he grows up.

The first thing I say is "Well, then he shouldn't play football, right?".

Doc looks me square in the eye and says "If you're not going to let him play football, it's because of head injuries, not his kidneys."

This absolutely floored me. My son has 1 working kidney, more likely to be injured because it is enlarged from doing all the work, and if it IS injured could cause my son to need a transplant, go through dialysis, crazy procedures, possibly ending fatally... and the doctor is still saying that head injuries would be more of a concern from playing football.

I love sports, including football. Played every sport I could growing up. Football, basketball and baseball in high school and low level college basketball. Wasn't really good at football, and never really played much. If I could go back it's the one sport I wouldn't have played in high school. I was always entering the basketball season hurt and not in the right shape.

But I am a huge sports fan. I look forward to watching many more Michigan games with my son. I can't wait for his first trip to the Big House. Growing up in this family he will be around all sports, including football. And I'm somewhat scared to death of the decision I'll be faced with if he wants to play football.

I don't want to rob him of any activity that brings him joy. I don't want to teach him to live life scared. I don't know. I guess my plan as of now is not to shield him from football, but to try and have a baseball, mitt, basketball, golf club and whatever else in his hands early and often.

But if he comes to me asking to play football, I honestly don't know what I'll do. Hopefully the game is safer by then. At least i have a little time to figure it out.

HAIL.

"You put your best against our best and let’s ride out. Let's go get it."

If he doesn't get involved in jousting, all of the other kids with chargers and lances and suits of armor will just be laughing at him. And, I probably don't need to tell you this, but a knighthood is probably out of the question for him. To say nothing of his chances of ever marrying a princess. I just hope for your sake that your neighborhood doesn't have any evil-doing Dukes or Earls.

Are you not entertained? Let them play, football is not as dangerous as skiing, or riding an four Wheeler. You have just as much chance off blowing out you're knee running marathons. Playing on a trampoline is more dangerous then football.

Im getting really tired of this subject, Especially since most people know little to nothing about youth sports and the proposed solutions are pretty silly. I have a 12 and 11 year old they have both played since they were 7. I've coached every year that they played.

Im not not going to respond the questions but i will say this.

A-Helmets are 100x safer than they were 10 years ago

Aa-Reseach is saying its not the hits causing brain damage its the rolling of the brain in the head, so contact at all is going to casue damage.

B-Kids are being taught the correct way to tackle. A form has had more emphasis than ever.

C-in my 5 years of coaching youth football Ive never seen 1 concussion in a kid under 12.

D-unlike 15 years ago players arent being told to suck it up and keep playing. If a kid is thought to have a concussion, they have to be cleared medically to play. If they do have a concussion they're out a minimum of 2 weeks and have to be cleared by a nuerologist before they can play again.

1. Yes, because it would be his choice, and I don’t think the risk of acquiring significant brain damage at the HS level is as much of risk as it is on the collegiate and pro levels. I wouldn’t encourage or necessarily discourage him, but I would let him know of the potential dangers and risks of playing the sport and let him make his choice about it just like my mother did with me, but I wouldn’t allow him to play until HS though. But to be honest if I didn’t play at the HS school level, I probably would feel like a lot of you feel about not letting your son play at all.

2. I’m not sure. There are times where I feel like this sport is on its death bed, and other time’s when I don’t and just think it’s at a cross road’s like it was in 1905, and that unless they do finally invent the magical helmet that everyone is either praying or hoping for that this game once again is going to have to evolve into something else. That although is safer for its participants, is also dangerous and violent enough to keep the American public entertained.

3. With the way the game is played today I’m not sure you can make it any safer than they have already made it with the new rules (which I don’t mind btw). Making player’s wrap up when tackling like in Rugby (someone can correct me if I’m wrong here), is an interesting proposal but it still won’t get rid of many of the games big collision’s (LB’s taking on block’s, blocks on ST’s, OL/DL play etc.) that result in sub concussive blow’s which we know contribute to brain disease just as much as suffering concussion’s do.

This OT but TBH I feel guiltier about watching CFB then I do of the NFL. At least current NFL players are getting well compensated for the damage they do their bodies, and they now know the risks of playing the sport at that level. While many of the participant’s in CFB now know of the game’s risk to their long term health, you have to wonder if the “education” that they receive is worth the damage they do upon their bodies. I love CFB but there are times when I wonder, if the game would be better off if the NFL just established a minor league/D league, and 99% of HS player’s would be done playing the sport at the age of 18.

And just per the Bernard Pollard quote, when I first saw the story, I thought he was referring to the collective future weight of lawsuits eventually dragging the NFL down. The thought that the NFL will cease to exist someday because it isn't violent enough, to me, is off in fringe survivalist zombie apocalypse land somewhere as a real concern.

So, to your Q's:

1. Yes, with reservations and encouragement to go with a sport you can play your whole life instead

2. see above re: Pollard

3. I think they're on the right track with taking away launching and moving closer to rugby-style tackling (I played h.s. football and college rugby, and had concussions in both, generally speaking the rugby tackling was more form-conscious and still very physical)

And I don't agree at all with the OP. While I do believe that soccer is fun to play, it is boring as hell to watch (IMO) and I really don't want the US to become even more European. Without hitting football wouldn't be nearly as fun to watch and some of the best plays happen because people go for the hit and don't wrap up (like Denard splitting the buckeye hit sandwich last November).

As for letting my kid play, I wouldn't discourage them but I would teach them to play as safe as possible and I would love to watch them lay down a big hit (as long as they lead with the shoulder and not the helmet).

I played football and lacrosse in high school all four years, two sports known for their violence. In fact, I was recruited to the lacrosse team, knowing nothing of the sport, strictly because of my size and strength by the lacrosse coach in the winter offseason when he saw me in the weight room. Our entire defense on our lacrosse team was members of the hockey and/or football teams strictly so we could lay out the opposing players with big hits. Our entire defensive philosophy was to try to hit the other players so hard right from the opening faceoff that they'd be afraid to come anywhere near the goal, and it often worked.

In the course of my career, I sustained 5 concussions. Two from lacrosse and three from football. The two lacrosse ones came on the same play in my junior year: I was crosschecked in the back of the head getting one to the back of my head, and getting the second on the front of my head when I face planted from the hit. I came out of the game for maybe 5 minutes tops and went back in after popping a bunch of advil and getting my vision back (it was blurry for awhile). The medical staff at my school just wasn't equipped to properly monitor players in a game and the trainer did nothing to stop me from going back in - it was the playoffs and I didn't want to let my coach or teammates down. Those were my 3rd and 4th concussions of my career overall, and the training staff didn't prevent me from returning for my senior year and getting my fifth concussion since they did no followup after the lacrosse season ended.

Since I have a son now, I don't think I'd want him playing football or lacrosse, or hockey for that matter. My wife is 4'10" so the odds are that he will be smaller rather than larger like me, even if he is midway between my wife and I for size, he's still going to be a smaller player so he'd likely be a ballcarrier and thus getting hit more (I was a lineman). I'd feel safer about him playing soccer, baseball (although a wild pitch to the head is always a risk) or basketball, compared to football, hockey, or lacrosse.

Football will survive, because there will always be a market for it. People are willing to pay to see people inflict pain on others. Case in point: Hockey fights. Aside from a goal, what revs the crowd up more than a hockey fight? I think the sport will have to find ways to make the equipment safer, and the helmet manufacturers are working on that, things like the sensors built right in to the helmets that advise of a concussion impact. That probably will be too costly for any non pro or NCAA team to use however; I can't see that being used in peewee or high school sports. But pro sports will survive, because we as a species have a bloodlust. Modern physical sports are just like the ancient gladiator games, or the Aztecs' violent hoops game, we just don't kill the losers at the end anymore. But deep down there are just too many people that want to witness someone beating the crap out of someone else, which is why MMA has gotten so popular. Heck, even NASCAR has a lot of fans that just want to watch it for the crashes. We have a trainwreck mentality, wanting to see something bad happen and enjoying it when it does.